A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness of immunoglobulin treatment in patients with hematological malignancies.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with hematological malignancies are likely to develop hypogammaglobulinemia. Immunoglobulin (Ig) is commonly given to prevent infections, but its overall costs and cost-effectiveness are unknown. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines to assess the evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of Ig, administered intravenously (IVIg) or subcutaneously (SCIg), in adults with hematological malignancies. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria, and only two economic evaluations were identified; one cost-utility analysis (CUA) of IVIg versus no Ig, and another comparing IVIg with SCIg. The quality of the evidence was low. Compared to no treatment, Ig reduced hospitalization rates. One study reported no significant change in hospitalizations following a program to reduce IVIg use, and an observational study comparing IVIg with SCIg suggested that there were more hospitalizations with SCIg but lower overall costs per patient. The CUA comparing IVIg versus no Ig suggested that IVIg treatment was not cost-effective, and the other CUA comparing IVIg to SCIg found that home-based SCIg was more cost-effective than IVIg, but both studies had serious limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Our review highlighted key gaps in the literature: the cost-effectiveness of Ig in patients with hematological malignancies is very uncertain. Despite increasing Ig use worldwide, there are limited data regarding the total direct and indirect costs of treatment, and the optimal use of Ig and downstream implications for healthcare resource use and costs remain unclear. Given the paucity of evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of Ig treatment in this population, further health economic research is warranted.

Economic evaluation: immunoglobulin vs prophylactic antibiotics in hypogammaglobulinemia and hematological malignancies.

ABSTRACT: Patients with hematological malignancies are at high risk of developing hypogammaglobulinemia (HGG) and infections. Immunoglobulin (Ig) is one recommended option to prevent these infections, but it is expensive, and its cost-effectiveness compared with other prevention strategies remains unknown. We conducted a trial-based economic evaluation from the Australian health care system perspective to estimate the 12-month cost-effectiveness of prophylactic Ig vs prophylactic antibiotics in 63 adults with HGG and hematological malignancies participating in the RATIONAL feasibility trial. Two analyses were conducted: (1) cost-utility analysis to assess the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained; and (2) cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the incremental cost per serious infection prevented (grade ≥3) and per any infection (any grade) prevented. Over 12 months, the total cost per patient was significantly higher in the Ig group than in the antibiotic group (mean difference, AU$29 140; P < .001). Most patients received IVIg, which was the main cost driver; only 2 patients in the intervention arm received subcutaneous Ig. There were nonsignificant differences in health outcomes. Results showed Ig was more costly than antibiotics and associated with fewer QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Ig vs antibiotics was AU$111 262 per serious infection prevented, but Ig was more costly and associated with more infections when all infections were included. On average and for this patient population, Ig prophylaxis may not be cost-effective compared with prophylactic antibiotics. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in a larger population and considering longer-term outcomes. The trial was registered at the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry as #ACTRN12616001723471.

The effectiveness of teleconsultations in primary care: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has focussed attention on models of healthcare that avoid face-to-face contacts between clinicians and patients, and teleconsultations have become the preferred mode of primary care delivery. However, the effectiveness of remote consultations in this setting remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of telephone or video consultations compared to those conducted face-to-face on key patient-relevant outcomes and healthcare utilisation in primary care, mental health and allied health services, which have had a critical role in the management of the wider and longer-term consequences of COVID-19. METHODS: A systematic review of primary studies comparing telephone or video consultations versus face-to-face visits, following the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, consultations delivered by telephone and videoconference were as effective as face-to-face in-person visits to improve clinical outcomes in adults with mental health conditions and those attending primary care services. Patient satisfaction with telephone and video consultations and the therapeutic alliance was high across the studies. However, high discontinuation rates in patients receiving teleconsultations indicate this may not be a suitable modality of healthcare delivery for all patients. Teleconsultations offer significant patient time savings in primary care, but appropriate implementation, including training of healthcare professionals and management of technical issues, is essential to ensure effective and valuable clinical interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Teleconsultations via telephone or videoconference are an effective alternative to face-to-face consultations for many patients attending primary care and mental health services. Teleconsultations have the potential to deliver time-efficient and lower-cost interventions at a distance while improving access to healthcare.

Prospective multisite cohort study of patient-reported outcomes in adults with new-onset seizures.

OBJECTIVE: New-onset seizures affect up to 10% of people over their lifetime, however, their health economic impact has not been well-studied. This prospective multicenter study will collect patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from adults with new-onset seizures seen in six Seizure Clinics across Melbourne, Australia and The University of Colorado, USA. METHODS: Approximately 450 eligible patients will be enrolled in the study at or following their initial attendance to Seizure Clinics at the study hospitals. Inclusion criteria for the study group are those with new-onset acute symptomatic seizures, new-onset unprovoked seizures, and new-onset epilepsy. Inclusion criteria for the three comparator groups are those with noncardiac syncope, those with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures, as well as published PROMs data from the Australian general population. Exclusion criteria are those aged less than 18 years, those with a preexisting epilepsy diagnosis, and those with intellectual disabilities or other impairments which would preclude them from comprehending and completing the questionnaires. Patients will complete eight online questionnaires regarding the effect that their seizures (or seizure mimics) have had on various aspects of their life. These questionnaires will be readministered at 6 and 12 months. Patients with new-diagnosis epilepsy will also be asked to share the reasons why they have accepted or declined antiseizure medications. ANALYSIS: Primary outcome measures will be quality of life, work productivity, informal care needs, and mood, at baseline compared to 6 and 12 months later for those with new-onset seizures and comparing these outcomes to those in the three comparator groups. Secondary outcomes include mapping of QoLIE-31 to the EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy, modelling indirect costs of new-onset seizures, and exploring why patients may or may not wish to take antiseizure medications. SIGNIFICANCE: These data will form an evidence-base for future studies that examine the effectiveness of various healthcare interventions for new-onset seizure patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the Alfred Health Human Research Ethics Committee (SERP: 52 538, Alfred HREC: 307/19), the Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/59148/Austin-2019), and the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB) (COMIRB #20-3028). ANZCTR TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000908831.